When You’re Cutting Staff, Spending $100,000 on a “Marriage Counselor” Makes No Sense

The reason why the UUA is not in policy governance…the President of the UUA is ELECTED, not appointed.

For those of you who know policy governance, you know that what makes it work is the board’s power to hire and/or fire the Chief Executive. It is the cornerstone. Take away that power, policy governance does not work.

Anybody look at the UUA recently? (yes, all sarcasm intended)

The President is elected and does not answer to the board in the traditional sense. So if one takes out the cornerstone of policy governance and then tries to implement policy governance, chaos ensues.

Anybody look at the UUA recently??

So now the board has taken $100,000 from the endowment to hire a marriage counselor (they are calling it a consultant).

Let me see if I have this straight…there isn’t enough money to keep some really valuable employees…there isn’t enough money to keep the MFC and RSCCs from having backlogs…there isn’t enough money to do some real church planting…but there is enough money to hire a marriage counselor.

Anybody look at the UUA recently???

The UUA Board has sanctioned the spending of $100,000 to hire a consultant to help bridge the divide between the Board and the Administration/Staff.

Well…I can consult them for a whole lot less.

STOP PRETENDING YOU ARE IN POLICY GOVERNANCE

See…much cheaper.

Now can we get about doing God’s business of preaching the gospel of love and not fear; hope and not desolation; faith and not despair?

[special thanks to my friend, L, for calling the consultant a marriage counselor]

Based on what the UUA bylaws say, the board can fire the UUA President:

Section 8.5. Removal of Officers.
Elected Officers. An elected officer may be removed by a three-fourths vote of the entire Board of Trustees at a meeting at which not less than three-fourths of the entire Board is present if in the opinion of the Board such officer is incapacitated or unable to carry out the duties of the office. The President may also be removed by such a vote of the Board if it determines that such removal is in the best interests of the Association.

That’s the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause of the UUA by-laws. (and I knew it existed) And it indirectly supports my argument.

You notice that the UUA by-laws requires 75% of the Board to go for it, which is higher than what is required to remove the President of the United States (that only requires 67%).
The reason for this is that just because there are a few members of the board who might not like the direction that the President is going, does not mean that removing the President would be in the “best interests of the Association.”

So in practice, the Board cannot fire the President. And thank goodness for it.

It’s time to stop the lie…the UUA is NOT in policy governance and never will be.